Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Profiles in Commuting

I’m a white male. When I take the Long Island Rail Road, I prefer the aisle seat or window seat — few take the center seat by choice. When only center seats are left on a crowded train, I try to pick a seat where one of the other passengers is black. Why? Because, whether I am traveling to or from the city, the train generally stops at Jamaica Station — and there is a better chance my seatmate will get off there, and I can slide into one of my preferred seats. Am I guilty of racial profiling? Well, yes — in the literal sense I am. But is there anything unethical about it? It’s not for some nefarious purpose — if I disliked black people, I would probably not choose to sit with them. JEFF, JERICHO, N.Y.

One of the complexities of writing this column — and this is almost entirely due to the name of the column — is deciding whether any given question technically involves an ethical quandary. In a recent radio interview, a former New York Times Magazine Ethicist, Randy Cohen, argued that “ethics isn’t ethics until other people are involved.” By that rationale, this is not an ethical predicament: The problem exists only within the interior world of your own consciousness. Where you elect to sit has no impact on anyone but yourself. But I’m going to answer the question anyway, because it raises interesting notions about the acceptable motives for making a personal decision.

You are not the first person who has told me about using racial cues to procure seats on public transportation: A female acquaintance once mentioned that she can usually find a freshly vacated seat on the F train if she stands next to a certain type of person just before a specific stop in Manhattan. Like you, she noted this habit sheepishly. It does feel wrong, somehow, because it’s using race — devoid of all other factors — as a way to predict behavior. But what you’re really doing is gambling on established demographics. The population of Jamaica, Queens, is 60 percent black. You’re not making any judgment on what that statistic means; you’re simply unable to ignore that this statistic exists. More important, you’re not inflicting harm on anyone else.

Let’s say one of the stops on your train was situated outside a convent, and you noticed a group of nuns sitting together near the front of the car. If you predicted that some of these nuns would get off at the convent stop, you would be “profiling” their behavior. Now, you might be totally wrong about where these nuns are headed. It’s a (bizarre) form of bias. But there isn’t any downside to your potentially incorrect supposition, assuming it remains inside your head. You are not diminishing anyone or assessing the value of their vocation. You’re not forcing the nuns to exit the train at the convent stop simply because you assumed that was already their intention. It’s merely something you anticipate, based on neutral criteria.

Photo

I realize my comparison is imperfect, because nuns choose to be nuns (and thus consciously accept whatever social connotations that choice entails). In the scenario you describe, you’re basing your assumptions on a qualitythat’s beyond anyone’s control. But this does not mean you’re making a racist decision; it means you’re making a decision that happens to involve race. I would say your principal moral responsibility is to remain aware that this is how your mind works (and that this type of thinking — if applied elsewhere — could be dangerous).

I’ve been reading about the long-term health hazards of sitting all day. Many of my colleagues have switched to standing desks. My workplace has a policy requiring a doctor’s note for this change, and my physician said she’d provide one only if I were already being treated for a condition that would necessitate it. Is it really unethical for her to “prescribe” the desk as a preventive measure? CARRIE, OAKLAND

Doctors are bound by their own set of applied ethics, most notably the adherence to nonmalfeasance (this is the “first, do no harm” principle). If your doctor believes a standing desk could somehow harm you, she’s ethically bound not to prescribe one for the prevention of theoretical disorders you don’t actually have. This seems like an unusually strict interpretation of that code, but that’s her ethical prerogative. (It’s also possible that your doctor doesn’t want to be involved in any situation in which her signature represents the expert substantiation in an ergonomic transaction that falls outside her expertise, which is a responsible choice as a professional.) That said, you are not ethically bound to see only one doctor.

My fiancée and I attended a Death Cab for Cutie concert at the Beacon Theater. We had first-row seats in the balcony section. We typically stand at concerts to dance and sing along, but we didn’t because no one else in our section was interested in that sort of thing. However, during the encore, we decided to stand for the last five songs. We were immediately chastised by several people behind us and told to sit down. Were we wrong to stand? Does the type of music or venue dictate whether it’s all right to stand? BOBBY CALISE, NEW YORK

Were they playing “I Will Follow You Into the Dark”? If so, it’s acceptable to stand. Otherwise, totally unethical. You are a monster.

E-mail queries to ethicist@nytimes.com, or send them to the Ethicist, The New York Times Magazine, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018, and include a daytime phone number.

A version of this article appears in print on October 7, 2012, on page MM14 of the Sunday Magazine with the headline: Profiles In Commuting. Today's Paper|Subscribe